C
catholiclady
Guest
One of my pet peeves is inclusive language in the liturgy - what are your toughts?
Take a look at your traditional Missal and you will see that virtually all – if not all – of the readings from the Pauline Epistles begin with the word “Fratres,” usually translated (then) as “Brethren.” This is not a feature of the current lectionary, it’s been done for a long time.It isn’t just that the phrase is the inclusive language subsitute for “brothers,” a word that Paul used but not remotely as often as our current lectionary might lead one to think. The problem is not just that inclusive language has replaced the original language. What is worse is that the phrase “brothers and sisters” has been intruded into the sacred text where it is not a replacement for anything. (Intruding “brothers” would have been misleading also.)
You won’t find those “brethrens” in the epistles themselves.Take a look at your traditional Missal and you will see that virtually all – if not all – of the readings from the Pauline Epistles begin with the word “Fratres,” usually translated (then) as “Brethren.” This is not a feature of the current lectionary, it’s been done for a long time.
No, of course not. I was simply pointing out that this particular problem is not limited to the current lectionary. It’s been going on for a long time, probably 1000 years or more.You won’t find those “brethrens” in the epistles themselves.
Yes, they must be read as printed, and the priest should say “All honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father,” even though that isn’t English. (Hint: Plural subjects take plural verbs.)I use inclusive language when ever possible. However the Liturgy and other prescribed texts must be read as printed.
If it is a misquotation or a mistranslation, it should be avoided. Really, recasting “for us men and for our salvation” to " for us, men and women, and children, and–oh, those in a persistent vegetative state–and for any other group that feels it has been left out, and for our salvation," is too ridiculous.One of my pet peeves is inclusive language in the liturgy - what are your toughts?
My point was that standard English already is inclusive. The problem isn’t with those who use the generic “he” or “man.” The problem is with those who, because of their ignorance of their own language, take offense where not only is no offense intended but where no offense is present.However, apart from Scripture and required liturgical texts, why not make a concerted effort to be inclusive (e.g. during the homily).